max_pooper:violentsalvation: nyseattitude: violentsalvation: dlp211: Fark It: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 235x253]

The derp is strong with this one.

Care to point out what is "wrong" about this?

100 round magazine clips don't exist, and you can't just pick up an automatic weapon at your local gun shop, they are already heavily restricted. It figures that NY times decides to quote someone who has no idea what he is basing his opinions on.

100 round mags don't exist? Reality would like a word with you.

100 round "magazine clips"

So you're one of those morons who believe that the word "clip" can never under any circumstances be used to describe a cartridge for holding ammunition despite being in the popular vernacular for a long time?

I now know that I can pretty much assume anything you say on this subject is pure ignorance. Thanks for clearing that up.

eraser8:cman: That would make sense if it was something like Fox News, but we are talking about the New York Times, the bastion of Liberalism.

What are you basing that on?

Be specific. Provide evidence.

The fact that Fox News says so over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

redmid17:Esc7: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

"I'm not saying you should outlaw guns sports cars, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons ferraris and corvettes if you just want to target shoot drive," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms travel, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon automobile."

Hey! I didn't have a dog in this fight because they're generally stupid, but you'll take my Porsches from my cold dead hands!

rohar:redmid17: Esc7: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

"I'm not saying you should outlaw guns sports cars, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons ferraris and corvettes if you just want to target shoot drive," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms travel, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon automobile."

Hey! I didn't have a dog in this fight because they're generally stupid, but you'll take my Porsches from my cold dead hands!

Dogs are often not very intelligent, especially ones that engage in fighting. However I will never take your Porsches. If I could afford one, I would be doing drunk doughnuts in my backyard as we speak.

Doesn't seem like these laws were a deterrent when they put bullet holes in innocent victims like 9 year old kids.

As I have said, violent shootings are part of our culture, we will get use to it like everything else we can't stop.

Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Smeggy Smurf:Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

magusdevil:Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

redmid17:magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

Pincy:redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

So? Maybe they need to be even more regulated?

Is it legal guns that are used in the overwhelming % of crime or are they illegally acquired weapons?

magusdevil:redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

Its also the only right that kills people every day.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment has actually killed anyone. Legally owned firearms do indeed kill people, but the vast, vast majority of gun homicides are illegally obtained and being illegally used (even prior to the homicide).

remember the USSR? their Olympics coverage was full of things like "USSR fights off challenge to take silver" when the field was them, us and some also rans. this article is like that. they used the numbers in different ways to try and bolster whatever point it was making. misrepresentation at it's fineness.

redmid17:rohar: redmid17: Esc7: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

"I'm not saying you should outlaw guns sports cars, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons ferraris and corvettes if you just want to target shoot drive," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms travel, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon automobile."

Hey! I didn't have a dog in this fight because they're generally stupid, but you'll take my Porsches from my cold dead hands!

Dogs are often not very intelligent, especially ones that engage in fighting. However I will never take your Porsches. If I could afford one, I would be doing drunk doughnuts in my backyard as we speak.

There's actually a lot of symmetry with both subject matters. We pass all sorts of laws to react to what people are doing with these devices. Hell, many municipalities will confiscate and crush your car for engaging in street drags. It still happens. Even when I can make it to 7 perfectly safe road tracks within a day's drive, there's still idiots street racing all around me. No amount of laws will change that.

Until these people have some connection to society, some reverence for the safety of their neighbors, some feeling of inclusion, both things will continue to happen.

We can stop both by fostering a better society, not by passing more restrictive laws.

/I live on acreage with a loop in my driveway//I have to admit guilt to the drunken doughnuts :)

That would make sense if it was something like Fox News, but we are talking about the New York Times, the bastion of Liberalism.

I'm beginning to believe you have either a serious drinking/drug habit, or suffer from some other condition characterized by making perfect sense in one post, and then completely throwing a derp rod in the next.

I'd ask you to elaborate, with evidence, why you find the NYT to be a "bastion of liberalism," but someone already did about 60 posts ago, and you're nowhere to be found. Either you went to bed, or you know this is the cheapest, most demonstrably false canard in the conservative's playbook. That, and I have never - ever - once heard anyone successfully defend the "liberal media" claim that wasn't simply them yelling "liberal media!" louder than the first time. You're better off trying to demonstrate that water isn't wet.

With some luck you're just taking a break to look at porn, and will back to defend your comment. But again, it will be the first time I've ever seen that done regarding this particularly tired falsehood. It's just a crutch people use whenever the particular media outlet doesn't specifically fellate their own opinion. Remember, I could just as easily call the NYT a "bastion of conservatism" because they have the gall not to print a front page headline of "Democratic Socialism: Great Idea, or Best Idea, EVAH!!?"

redmid17:Pincy: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

So? Maybe they need to be even more regulated?

Is it legal guns that are used in the overwhelming % of crime or are they illegally acquired weapons?

magusdevil: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

Its also the only right that kills people every day.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment has actually killed anyone. Legally owned firearms do indeed kill people, but the vast, vast majority of gun homicides are illegally obtained and being illegally used (even prior to the homicide).

And yet the NRA opposes requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns... that's weird.

magusdevil:redmid17: magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

There are .50 cal M60s in civilian hands right now. I don't think that there are any restrictions on mounting it on a vehicle provided it stays on private land. I imagine there are a few laws preventing that at state and municipal levels. Automatic weapons have to be either pre-68 or pre-86 depending on domestic or foreign manufacture.

magusdevil:redmid17: Pincy: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

So? Maybe they need to be even more regulated?

Is it legal guns that are used in the overwhelming % of crime or are they illegally acquired weapons?

magusdevil: redmid17: Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

Guns are already more regulated than any other constitutionally enumerated right

Its also the only right that kills people every day.

I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment has actually killed anyone. Legally owned firearms do indeed kill people, but the vast, vast majority of gun homicides are illegally obtained and being illegally used (even prior to the homicide).

And yet the NRA opposes requiring the reporting of lost or stolen guns... that's weird.

magusdevil:Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

magusdevil:redmid17: magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: Exactly. This is why more laws won't do a damned thing. It's already illegal to kill people except for self defense. All the aforementioned murderers were known to be nuts. The system failed because it's about taking rights from innocent people, not protecting them from the criminals, the lunatics and the nutjobs.

Which is why you should have no problem with me owning a nuclear weapon. I'll even submit to a background check and the waiting period.

That, yes provided you do nothing to harm the life, liberty or property of others through fraud or force. A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

Smeggy Smurf:A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.

magusdevil:Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.

magusdevil:Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.

I was under the impression that the coax gun on the bradley was a 30 cal.

magusdevil:Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.

No, hes right. A converted M2 was used by Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam to get confirm kills as a sniper out to 2,460 yards. His record held till the afghan war.

Pincy:I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.

Antimatter:magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.

No, hes right. A converted M2 was used by Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam to get confirm kills as a sniper out to 2,460 yards. His record held till the afghan war.

Ned Stark:you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.

Correct. The Heller decision held that the prefatory clause of the 2nd does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

Ya know, if we are taling about limiting the second ammendment to only the technology that the founders had, I must be compelled to suggest limiting the first ammendment to printing presses and oral speach. Seems only fair right? The founding fathers could have never thought up of a series of tubes to send messages accross the country, or broadcasting speach over the air.

HeadLever:Ned Stark: you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.

Correct. The Heller decision held that the prefatory clause of the 2nd does not bind or limit, in any way, the operative clause.

Easy way to fix the obesity crisis: mandate that everyone who owns a gun (ie, the south, ie, the fat-ass rednecks) must be physically fit enough and active in a militia that trains once a week.

redmid17:Esc7: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

"I'm not saying you should outlaw guns sports cars, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons ferraris and corvettes if you just want to target shoot drive," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms travel, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon automobile."

Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.

No matter how a gun control activist may seem to *feel* about the situation, I think we've come to a general consensus in this nation regarding firearms.

That being, legislation can only go so far in solving any problem. Indeed, the wide spectrum that we have in gun control laws from state to state seem to complicate and undermine each other. There reaches a point where we have to recognize that education and mental healthcare measures will go much further in accomplishing a goal of 'as close to peace as anyone can hope'. And that there reaches a point where as long as a human can hold free will and experience passion and grief... we will always have senseless violence.

We can take a good lesson from the story of Pandora's Box. In fact, there are few better examples other than nuclear proliferation. This is about damage control. NO MATTER what measure or laws you put into place, you can't put calamity back into the box. It just isn't going to happen. All you can do is try to teach the world how to responsibly (and logically) deal with the monster we've all unleashed upon it.

way south:magusdevil: Smeggy Smurf: A belt fed .50 can be one hell of a precise weapon with the proper attention for a skilled armorer. It can pick off single men at 1500 yards unlike a nuclear weapon. It can remove the single fascist that needs killing instead of 100,000 dumbass civilians.

A belt fed fully automatic .50 is nothing like precise under any circumstances. I operated one off the top of a Bradley in the Infantry, no amount of attention by any armorer will make it precise.

Pincy:I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

#1, That's a dependent clause (actually, not a clause at all since it has no actual verb ["being" is a participle here, used as an adverb modifying "necessary"]), and so is merely descriptive. The operative part is the independent clause, the part that can stand alone as a grammatically complete and correct sentence in its own right. That's basic English grammar, then and now. In this case, the dependent clause specifies a reason for the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, not a limitation upon it.

#2, Three consecutive drafts of the Second Amendment submitted to Congress prior to ratification began:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State,...

This shows beyond any doubt whatsoever what the term "Militia" was understood to mean at the time: it meant the body of the people. The populace. Not just some of them. Not just a specialized group of them. Almost all of them. Those drafts also included an exemption for those "religiously scrupulous of bearing arms," meaning Quakers and the like. The wording of that exemption was debated and changed over those drafts, but not that first part with the definition of "Militia."

Both were removed from the final ratified version. The explicit definition of "Militia" was removed only because it was considered redundant!

So, the "well regulated Militia" means all adult citizens who have no religious or moral objections to bearing arms, and who have not waived their Rights by, for instance, being convicted of a felony crime.

You can rationally debate whether the Second Amendment has perhaps outlived its usefulness, now results in more net harm than good to society, etc. Fine. Just get ⅔ (²/₃) of the members of each of the two Houses of Congress, and then ¾ of the States, to agree with you (since the only way to repeal or even alter an Amendment is with another Amendment).

But you can not rationally debate that the Second Amendment says and means anything other than what it actually says and means in the grammar and idiom of the day (and modern grammar as well).

In modern grammar and idiom conveying the intent of the Framers, it would read something like this:

"Because a well-armed and well-equipped populace is vital to the security of a free society, the inherent and inalienable right of all adult citizens to keep and bear hand-wieldable weaponry and any ammunition and other equipment needed for the operation of same shall not be infringed."

HMS_Blinkin:redmid17: Esc7: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

"I'm not saying you should outlaw guns sports cars, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons ferraris and corvettes if you just want to target shoot drive," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms travel, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon automobile."

Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.

Did you bother to see if this issue was already properly handled before you shot your mouth off providing more of the derision that creates the monsters in our society?

HMS_Blinkin:redmid17: Esc7: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

"I'm not saying you should outlaw guns sports cars, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons ferraris and corvettes if you just want to target shoot drive," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms travel, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon automobile."

Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.

No but have plenty of cars cause accidents that cause as many deaths as what happened in that place of worship? Yes? Then shut up

redmid17:HMS_Blinkin: redmid17: Esc7: "I'm not saying you should outlaw guns, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons if you just want to target shoot," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon."

"I'm not saying you should outlaw guns sports cars, but I don't see the point of hundred-round magazine clips and automatic weapons ferraris and corvettes if you just want to target shoot drive," said John Tyson, 66, of Winchester, Va. "People say it's their right to bear arms travel, but when the Constitution was written there was no such thing as an automatic weapon automobile."

Did someone recently use a sports car to kill a lot of people at their place of worship? No? Then shut up.

No but have plenty of cars cause accidents that cause as many deaths as what happened in that place of worship? Yes? Then shut up

An accident is not the same thing as an intentional act though. The better comparison would be vehicular homicide versus gun homicide.

Ned Stark:Pincy: I'm not advocating we take everyone's guns away but a lot of people sure seem to overlook the first part of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Seems like that would allow us to regulate gun ownership to some extent.

you are misreading the thing. thats a justifying clause. because the state must maintain an organized fighting force to carry out its function, the right of the people, as a separate entity from the militia, shall not be infringed.

This is exactly what I'm talking about, some people want to consider these things as almost completely separate sentences. They are not. It is one complete thought. Yes, people have the right to bear arms AND the state has the right to regulate those arms.